Subject:
|
Re: Just Teasing, I Have No Intention of Debating Any of This...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 24 Mar 2003 19:50:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
956 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
>
>
> > > Do you suppose we ride the only white horse?
> >
> > Is it out of the question that maybe we do?
>
> Yes. I can't think of a plausible reason to think that we are more concerned
> with doing good than _everyone_ else. I think that all people are motivated
> by their own interests which means that any country or society will have
> "good" and "bad" people.
Pretty cynical. And un-American, I might add.
> > To RM and the Left, it is a categorical "yes". It is assumed that
> > of course Bush is up to something-- *all* politicians are . Why
> > is that necessarily so?
>
> Past performance?
As in investing, "past performance doesn't guarantee future results";-)
> > My theory is that the Left hate the fact that Bush won,
>
> I think that you don't mean me when you say "the left," but I don't hate the
> Bush won...I hate how he won. There are too many contingencies and
> coincidences leading to his victory in Florida for a rational person to think
> that he won it honorably. That is just an implausible assertion. If it came
> down to being that close after recounts and the Supreme Court (stacked by >daddy
> or not) decided the situation we might just figure that's how it works out and
> we'll try again in four years. But the misappropriation of voting rights as
> a result of collusion between Texas and Florida is too much. I hate the fact
> that the election was rigged. That's what they do in places like Chile and
> Cuba and we have reduced our great nation by fixing the election.
Rigged??? Come on. How did those who "rigged" the election know it would be so
close in popular vote? The idea is nuts. There was a lot political
maneuvering, but Gore was certainly doing his own as well. I think Gore is at
peace with the outcome (I just read a quotation from a speech of his in the
Dominican Republic in December, where Gore asked the crowd, "In your
presidential election here, does the candidate who gets the most votes win the
election?")
> I know that you'll wave your hands in dismissal of all this, as if pretending
> it didn't happen will make it so, but I'm not going to forget about it.
If he can accept it, why can't you and the rest of the Left accept it?
> > that Bush is a Christian,
>
> Ummm...most Democrats are Christian too. I'm afraid I don't follow this one.
> I mean, _I_ happen to consider being a Christian an intellectual fault, but
> most of the "lefties" don't. There is a large subsection of the American
> communitarian movement that specifically base their communitarian beliefs on
> their the teachings of Jesus Christ. Richard, here in this forum, has
> repeatedly pointed to references that suggest Jesus advocated a pretty strong
> socialist stance: Jesus was a lefty.
And of course nothing could be further from the truth. Jesus was about, among
other things, social justice-- that doesn't mean that he was a *socialist*.
How absurd. His governmental preferance would probably be a Theocracy;-)
>
> > and that they see American values are swinging to the right.
>
> I admit that this bothers me, but since I stradle the left and the right more
> extremely than most people who are one only one side, I can enjoy the ground
> gained either way.
>
> > The Left is all for tolerance as long as you
> > tolerate what *they* tolerate-- anything else is met with the kind of vile
> > intolerance I see for the *person* of George Bush.
>
> I agree. Liberal Americans are no more likely than Conservative Americans to
> be open minded about reinterpreting the world. Both groups believe that the
> world is a certain way and that's all there is to it.
>
> > > Wait a second there. Undisputed? You're just asserting that. What if I
> > > dispute it? Or did you mean undisputed by the people who agree with you?
> >
> > No please, dispute it if you wish. When or where has appeasing
> > terrorists ever worked out?
>
> What do you mean by "appeasing" and "worked?"
When has the strategy of negotiating with terrorists ie giving them what they
want ended in a successful outcome of a situation?
> > > It
> > > is really quite clear to me (though this is certainly disputed) that the
> > > Palestinians are resorting to small scale terrorist aggression because it is
> > > the only tactic that they have available.
> >
> > What about peace!!!??? They have *never* tried that, because there are
> > extremist groups among Palestinians for which peace with Israel is not an
> > option-- only the destruction of the State of Israel.
>
> What is the early history of Israel like?
Since DAY ONE they have been under attack from Arabs.
> My impression of Palestinian claims
> is that they will be much happier if Israel would assert sovreignty over the
> land assigned to them by UN mandate and start treating Palestinian Israelis as
> equals. Do we have reason (other than the Macho Flash of these groups) to
> believe that nothing less than the dissolution of the state of Israel would
> satisfy and significant number of them? I have specifically hearn mainstream
> Arab politicians claim that that isn't so.
The problem is that there are many terrorist organizations that *do* want the
destruction of the state of Israel-- until *that* issued is addressed, nothing
positive can happen WRT the Palestinians and their nationalistic aspirations.
> > > And anyway, what do you figure they would do if we made
> > > our donations to them contingent on pursuing the peace process?
> >
> > To possibly use nukes as a last resort to defend themselves? *That* wouldn't
> > be good...
>
> So we're paying extortian?
So you are saying we should be the extortionists by dangling our support?
> > Look, the scary part is that he sympathizes with people who are willing to go
> > to extremes to reach their goals. Wounding America wounds Israel, so why
> > wouldn't he assist terrorists?
>
> So if we made our relationship with Israel such that harming them did not harm
> us, we would be safe from him? Surely that would be cheaper than doing a war.
Geez Chris, they are our ALLIES. Hurting them *is* hurting us. Are you
suggesting that we cut our alliance with Israel in hopes of appeasing
terrorists? That is *precisely* what they want! So they can then attack
Israel! What other motive would you surmise from desiring a rift between
Israel and the US?
> > Depends what you mean by "us". The obliteration of Washington D.C. and all
> > of our leaders would instantly create 50 "countries" of some sort.
>
> I'm not convinced that:
>
> a) this would really happen
> b) if it did happen it would last longer than a day or two
> c) this would be a bad thing
Dude, you are sick!
> How do you feel about President Carter?
Love the man, hate his screwed-up politics. His faith in the UN is
particularily troubling. He should have told the Nobel community to shove
their disingenuous award.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
164 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
